This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Odd that the anon from Indiana is electing to change the word linked to open-source software to "open source" rather than the original "open-source" and entirely ignore the instance in the lede, the "official distributions" table, the three in the "large-scale deployments" section, the one in the "critical reception" section, and mention in the link to portal:Free and open-source software. Is there any reason to keep it only in the infobox? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Open source" is correct. Wikipedia seems to be consistent in its use of "open-source", but this is wrong. Strangely, I can't find any discussion other than this one so I don't know how this came about. Note that http://www.ubuntu.com describes Ubuntu as "an open source software operating system," and in this article "open source" appears three times in the titles of citations and "open-source" doesn't appear at all. Dan Bloch (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the infobox should just link to to open-source software without any pipes. It would solve this issue and avoid any confusion for readers as to where the link is pointing to. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Software development sites are not a good source for correct rules of the language with their incorrect use of capitals, etc. This is the case of a hyphenated adjective (see English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers) and "open-source" is correct. There was a brief post-move discussion (Talk:Open-source software/Archive 1#Move) that discusses correct usage versus common usage as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Görlitz here seems to have a questionable understanding of history. As of his own edit one year ago, it was correctly spelled as "open source". Either his (strongly held, weakly supported) opinions have changed since then, or a mistake was made. 2600:1015:B025:B3F0:8C3:D9EF:BDB7:818C (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The facts remain: "open source" is the wrong way to write the word. As I suggested, get the article moved if you think you're right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, is it acceptable to use both Open Source and/or open-source since the meaning is technically the same idea/concept? I don't see the fuzz if both were used on an article if it means the same thing but without the "-" symbol in use. ImpWarfare (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, there's nothing wrong with the article open-source software. Görlitz, did you even read the discussion you linked to? It says "open-source" is an adjective and "open source" is a noun, as I clearly stated when undoing your mistake. What you are suggesting is that all the infobox parameters be changed from nouns to adjectives. Perhaps the license should be changed to "free-software"? In Deutschland sagen sie vielleicht Open-Source, aber dies ist die englische Wikipedia. Ich schlage vor, Sie lernen unsere Sprache. 2600:1015:B017:FA9A:7854:DB6:AFD2:62B3 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There is something wrong with being inconsistent. We should only use "open-source" or "open source". I did read the discussion we are describing an "open-source source model, so it's an adjective, not a noun. And not everyone with a German name is German. Check out my user page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Perhaps the real issue is that the English language is inconsistent. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about that on Wikipedia. 2600:1015:B06D:3B1D:B12B:17E2:581F:CA1F (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume that's another comment directed at me. How about we focus on content, not on the contributor?

I have shown how it's an adjective, nothing can be done about that. I recognize that "open source" can be used as a noun, but this is not one of those cases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers. Grammar rules notwithstanding, correctness is determined by usage, and "open source" is far more widely used than "open-source"(ref: Google search for "open source software"). It isn't Wikipedia's job to be prescriptive. On the other hand, what a pain to change them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbloch (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Usage is not always correct. For instance, most grocery stores use the incorrect "x items or less" over their checkout lanes (when it should be "x items or fewer"). As an encyclopedia, we should strive to be correct not imitate usage that we know to be incorrect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That is an unrelated issue. From the previously cited article: "If, however, there is no risk of ambiguities, it may be written without a hyphen." Simplicity and clarity should be the guiding principles here. The open source community -- that is, programmers who contribute to open source -- do not use the hyphen to describe their own work (see GitHub). That norm should be respected. 2600:1015:B004:C94C:5043:E17:5D47:2895 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Have the article moved. What programmers do and don't do is not important as I explained above as they use their own rules of grammar. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"What programmers do and don't do is not important"...OK. Maybe you should stop using our software. 2600:1015:B06F:B2EF:8117:219F:396D:333 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect I was involved in creating it before you were born so maybe you should stop using our software. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Walter Görlitz has it absolutely right here. "Open source" on its own is unhyphenated, but when used as a compound modifier, it gets hyphenated, as in "open-source software". See MOS:HYPHEN—this is from Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style; we don't rely on the styles used in outside sources here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Okay, I now see that not only does this follow from Wikipedia's Manual of Style, but "open-source]" has an entry in merriam-webster.com. Carry on. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Danbloch Also note that "open-source" has an entry in the Oxford Dictionaries not Open Source without the "-". Now that you've pointed it out :). ImpWarfare (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

What would go in this section? Links to similar or derived distributions are already mostly linked in the body. Should it be removed entirely? I don't see the point of an empty section. Mount2010 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO is the guide. It currently reads, "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." Personally a link to other distributions doesn't make sense here, but a link to list of Linux distributions would.

Definitely, anything already linked in the article should not be listed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not empty, it has "boxed" links to the Free and open-source software portal, the Computer science portal and the Information technology portal. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to expand a bit on LTS dates as I'm about to change the date for 18.04. This page at the moment lists the LTS date of 18.04 as 2028, but this isn't quite accurate as the LTS date is 2023 and the ESM date is 2028, as referenced on this page [1]. At the moment, for other LTS releases, the date used on this wiki page is the LTS date, not the ESM date. So either 18.04's date needs to be changed to reflect the LTS date rather than ESM, or the other releases needed to be changed to use the ESM date. So far as I'm aware, this page has always reflected the LTS dates so that's the date I'm going with. That's the rationale for the change. This is documented and referenced in detail on the main page Ubuntu_version_history, which lists the LTS and ESM dates separately and explains the nuance in its main section. FangXianfu (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It is worth explaining. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems like some reference to MAAS bare-metal in missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech201805 (talk • contribs)

You will need to provide more context to this request, as I am not sure what you are referring to. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Presumably he's referring to Metal As A Service, to spell out the initialism. Guy Harris (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

An edit that changed it to reflect what the Template:Infobox OS documentation suggests for the setting of "family" and "kernel" was reverted with an edit summary of just "not consensus".

What consensus is there? Is there some consensus, either for this page in particular or for pages in general, that differs from what's in the documentation for Template:Infobox OS? If so, that consensus should be reflected in that documentation. Guy Harris (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There have been multiple discussions about this in the past:

• Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 10#Operating system family
• Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_12#Ubuntu: “We’re not GNU/Linux”
• Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_12#Operating system?
• Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_13#OS family

If there's a change, it should be discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

So presumably that's a discussion about Linux distributions in general, not specifically about Ubuntu.

If so, the the Template:Infobox OS documentation should be updated to say that Linux distributions should be in the "Linux" family. Guy Harris (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Why does that even matter? WP:CONSENSUS does not need to be across the project. If there isn't one for other articles or the template, start the discussion, but the consensus here is clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

And the discussions above are only those for not moving to "unix-like" there are others about other variants. "Linux" is the consensus here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion opened on the template's talk page. (Having different consensuses for different distributions would make no sense whatsoever.) Guy Harris (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Both the IPA and the English transliteration of the IPA say "uhbuhntoo" (Ubuntu (/ʊˈbʊntuː/ (About this soundlisten) uu-BUUN-too)[6] ). But when I play the audio file, it says ubuntu (that's the IPA long oo), and the cited reference also shows the long oo.

Is there a reason for this inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.125.186 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The IPA and respelling are consistent with the source, which is emulating the traditional notation of American dictionaries "o͝o" (/ʊ/) and "o͞o" (/uː/) by "oǒ" and "oō", respectively. More confusingly, the placement of the stress mark (apostrophe) follows the practice of the IPA rather than that of the American notation, as in videos like this it is clear it is the second syllable that is stressed.

The audio also sounds consistent to my ears, and if anything sounds off to any extent it is the pronunciation of /t/, which sounds palatalized for some reason (either that or the speaker has a diphthongal/fronted /uː/), not the vowels. Nardog (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ubuntu had a popular program in the 2000s in which they would send free CDs (sometimes whole boxes of them) by postal mail, free of charge, to anyone who requested them. Source: https://ubuntu.com/blog/shipit-comes-to-an-end There is no mention of this in the article. Should there be? Where? Maybe an interested party can add this. Shawnmb (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

At the time it was pretty minor and it disappeared early on, as too expensive. Not sure it is any more than WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Since Ubuntu 20.04, settings allow user to enable or disable Location services (which use Mozilla Location Service). However, Mozilla Firefox (pre-installed as default browser) still uses by default Google Location Services and is able to provide location informations even if Location services in Ubuntu settings are disabled.

Is it ok, now? Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed it due to WP:NOTMANUAL which explains that Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. The ref you cited was a Mozilla help page that does not even mention Ubuntu. If this belongs anywhere it would be on Firefox not here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I'll admit ref was quite circumstantial. The whole problem is that I think a "issues" paragraph should be fairly created. I like Ubuntu and hope it'll get better and better, but this article lends it as it was an "Eden" in the OSs world, with no bugs, issues, and such stuff. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We do not create separate sections for issues or controversies. We discuss them in-line with other topics unless they become a distraction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The statement "low privileges" sounds vague because it can be assumed just for read and write access to file system. However programs are installed as sudo and can get privileges higher than standard user. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the context. The place where that appears reads "User programs run with low privileges". While they are installed using sudo (or even root) they themselves do not have root access, even if they set-up their own user privileges to run under. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sudo is not the context, but low privileges is an opinion. It maybe can be compared with windows, as far as we consider filesystem read and write privileges. But, what about firewalls, sandboxes and such things? I think: it should be, minimum, explicated what type of privileges. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Opinion? No, it is supported by the reference.

I'm starting to have problems with everything you're writing and doing here.

You make links in headings which goes against MOS:HEADING and the link didn't show anything.

You link directly to topics instead of breaking backlinks.

Now you're offering opinion claiming that sourced content is opinion.

Finally, you mean to write Windows, rather than windows.

Find a reliable source to support your opinion and add a summary of the source's content otherwise, stop pushing your opinions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

here we go, experienced user starts appealing at uppercases and formatting in a talk page, then treats article as it was his own property page. I'm here to learn but don't think wiki will expand this way. Stop edits today for me. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The more I thought about what you wrote, the more disturbing it became. The section is about applications. If you're running your firewall as an application, you're doing something wrong. Yes, I expect them to operate at a level lower than I do GEdit or LibreOffice, but then again, I don't expect those applications to prevent malicious behaviour on my system. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm showing WP:OWNership of the article. If you're here to learn, please do, but don't be an uninformed expert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I would like to add the latest LTS release of Ubuntu which is 20.04.2.0^[1] in the infobox alongside the latest 21.04 release. However, I had a hard time trying to implement it in the infobox. If anyone can help me with this, that would be great. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. The infobox template Template:Infobox OS does not allow for multiple current versions, only one, so we just list the most recent, in this case 21.04. To be honest the infobox is cluttered enough as it is, so rather that make it even more cluttered, this information goes in the article text instead. We also just deal with general releases, like 20.04 LTS and don't get into the minutia of point releases or sub point releases as per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion at the External links Noticeboard regarding this edit, and reversion. It is about whether we should be using distrotest.net on Linux articles or not. Huggums537 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with the reversion, but I haven't reverted it back because of the ongoing discussion, and I want to avoid edit wars by following WP:BRD. Huggums537 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are you responding to your own comment? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I intended for that to be an addendum comment to my first comment, not a reply to my own comment. I will put the comment, and formatting back in accordance with its intended purpose. Please do not modify other peoples comments in a way that changes the intended meaning or purpose of their comments. This is against talk page guidelines: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Huggums537 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, what you did here is the editing equivalent of grabbing my arm, and slapping me with my own hand while asking me, "why are you hitting yourself?" I'm sure you have a good chuckle at my expense, but I find it to be unamusing. Let's try to be respectful of each other. Huggums537 (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:INDENTGAP Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, now you are just being tendentious since I already explained to you what the intentions of my comment are, and I asked you civilly not to move it. I would take you to Ani over this if I didn't think it was a bunch of tomfoolery, or just trying to push my buttons. Plus, I have a lot more pleasant things to do. I'm not going to edit war over this ridiculousness either, so I hope you're happy with yourself that you get your way. Huggums537 (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I am being precise and correct. I hope you are learning how to edit correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz it has been more than ten days since anyone has made any meaningful contributions to the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:External links/Noticeboard#use of distrotest.net in EL. Can we agree there is a consensus for the link and put it back in? Huggums537 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Huggums537: Agreed. I'll restore it now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I know a discussion about distrotest.net already exists, but that isn't about the website not existing anymore, which is why I created a new discussion.

What should we do about the distrotest.net link below "External links", the site doesn't exist anymore, should we remove the line "Ubuntu on DistroTest, a free online emulator for operating systems."? 2A00:23C4:3680:3100:7077:9ACA:D0F1:54EE (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for noticing that dead external link. The domain seems to have been sold and now just has articles like 10 Of The Best Threading Hair Removal : Rumors & Highlights. Unlike some external links that can be fixed with archive.org or similar services, this one cannot, as archives won't offer the functionality, so I have just removed it from this article and all others on Wikipedia, as well. - Ahunt (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)